suspected defects vs proven defects, what recourse do we have if we are defected for something that simply doesnt exist? the 'guilty until proven innocent' thing with cars just seems more than a little 'off' to me. its strange that a traffic officer can simply look at a car and say 'the exhaust is too loud' when the car in question isnt even running.
standardisation of adr's, mod plates, and proper officer training. as has been pointed out, you call vehicle inspection services x amount of time about issue y and recieve dozens of different answers, why? an example of the confusion in regards to what is legal and what isnt the mazda rx8, up until recently factory fitted suspension was 'too low' according to regency inspections. also, how can a traffic officer who knows absolutely nothing about cars defect you for something they 'think might be illegal'? its mind boggling, i cant take someones money because i 'think they may've lost the hand'.
thats really all i can think of for now, however, im more than happy to be represented by pete, nene, luke, andrew, and kell.
edit, just read andrew and chads posts and now have a few other question.
a clear distinction between major and minor defects.
and mallala, drift days in particular, the defect blitzes that regularly occur just outside the gates at the finish of a drift event, why? a police presence i can agree with, as some people might feel the need to emulate some of the things theyd seen during the day when they leave the track, but thats it.